EU4 - Development Diary - 24th of July 2018

[WorldWarIV]

it destroys Religious Ideas, it shuts down more unusual play styles (I'm not a Turkey --> Georgia --> Byzantium guy either, but they have that right)

I have almost two thousand hours on the clock, I read the wiki and the forum regularly and I didn't even know you could do that. Is there really that much players doing it that you need to ban it? Won't you make your hardcore fan base who knows that kind of stuff angry for something not that important outside those circles? I'm not sure I understand what Paradox is going for here.

 

[Bl0wf1sh]

Wild, random idea on missionaries: No more missionaries for conversion. Instead, each country can establish a Religious Center that slowly converts provinces for countries that follow the religious center's religion in that particular trade region (or maybe even everyone - like in trade companies?). Establishing a religious center is a one-time investment in a building that can only be built in a province with sufficient trade power. Completing the building triggers a continuous event chain (revolts etc.), while the religious center is converting.

 

[Mrkew]

Territory limit is good, but you shouldn't have buffed the number of base states. In fact, you should have reduced the gain of possible states through tech

 

[hashinshin]

I have almost two thousand hours on the clock, I read the wiki and the forum regularly and I didn't even know you could do that. Is there really that much players doing it that you need to ban it? Won't you make your hardcore fan base who knows that kind of stuff angry for something not that important outside those circles? I'm not sure I understand what Paradox is going for here.

They're removing exploits that are used to abuse game mechanics? The Ottoman thing is basically being scapegoated by a dumb community who rather than try to understand the problem are REEEEEEEEEEing at multiplayer because they think that by avoiding the real issue they can somehow get their way.

The REAL problem is stuff like Minghals, Polish Tsardom, etc.

 

[Sunspawn]

Territory limit is good, but you shouldn't have buffed the number of base states. In fact, you should have reduced the gain of possible states through tech

And to compensate for that, buff the number of states from government forms.

 

[WorldWarIV]

They're removing exploits that are used to abuse game mechanics? The Ottoman thing is basically being scapegoated by a dumb community who rather than try to understand the problem are REEEEEEEEEEing at multiplayer because they think that by avoiding the real issue they can somehow get their way.

The REAL problem is stuff like Minghals, Polish Tsardom, etc.

But is it something casuals will really do? Is it a strategy used by the majority? It sounds like a lot of work. I've never even realized that trade companies and rushing to India were that important a strategy... Of course I wouldn't mind if they rebalanced it, but if I knew they were removing TC because some ubergamer were using them in a gamey way, I'd find that odd.

I mean if it's fun for some, I really don't think most of the player base cares about that.

 

[Rusiak]

Oh look, more nerfs to wide whilst not making tall fun and interesting...

... it quickly becomes B O R I N G as frak.

reminds me of how good galactica was....

on a more serious note:
interest in dharma has just gone into the negatives.

Vicky 3 when? at least we can have 6-7 nice and could-be-better dlcs until everything goes the eu4 route.

 

[hashinshin]

But is it something casuals will really do? Is it a strategy used by the majority? It sounds like a lot of work. I've never even realized that trade companies and rushing to India were that important a strategy... Of course I wouldn't mind if they rebalanced it, but if I knew they were removing TC because some ubergamer were using them in a gamey way, I'd find that odd.

I mean if it's fun for some, I really don't think most of the player base cares about that.

Does it matter? We've seen time and time and time and time again over DECADES of video games that players will trend towards what is most powerful, and feel BAD when they don't use whats most powerful. Worse yet, when you realize A. How easy it is to do, and B. Just how LARGE the power difference is between stuff like Minghals and normal EU4 gameplay you'll see why this change has to be made. It's basically an ironman viable cheat code.

And the argument "it doesn't effect anyone" is a reason why it SHOULD be fixed. Here's an exploit that isn't used by everyone, why not plug it? Look at how quickly French-Prussia was exploited and how many people were posting their WCs on reddit when that was used.

 

[WorldWarIV]

I see your point, you want to remove it because it's an exploit, no matter how fun or unimportant it can be.

 

[bly08]

They're removing exploits that are used to abuse game mechanics? The Ottoman thing is basically being scapegoated by a dumb community who rather than try to understand the problem are REEEEEEEEEEing at multiplayer because they think that by avoiding the real issue they can somehow get their way.

The REAL problem is stuff like Minghals, Polish Tsardom, etc.

I don't know how Minghal is considered abusing game mechanics when all it needs is a culture shift. After MoH Minghal WC is probably harder than Ulm WC. Never heard of anyone using Polish Tsardom and I can't see how it's broken. More importantly I really do not understand why it's of anyone's concern what other people do in a single player sandbox game.

 

[shinyespeon]

They're removing exploits that are used to abuse game mechanics? The Ottoman thing is basically being scapegoated by a dumb community who rather than try to understand the problem are REEEEEEEEEEing at multiplayer because they think that by avoiding the real issue they can somehow get their way.

The REAL problem is stuff like Minghals, Polish Tsardom, etc.

when I was linked this post I immediately guessed its author

You and your community have acquired quite a reputation for your 'unique' game analysis!

Not as funny as the "we datamine the game and still don't know how discipline works" post though

 

[brifbates]

I don't know how Minghal is considered abusing game mechanics when all it needs is a culture shift. After MoH Minghal WC is probably harder than Ulm WC. Never heard of anyone using Polish Tsardom and I can't see how it's broken. More importantly I really do not understand why it's of anyone's concern what other people do in a single player sandbox game.

Primarily because it isn't JUST a single player sandbox game. That said, they really should put it in as an optional rule along with some other stuff (developing institutions immediately comes to mind as one). They can even set it so certain rule changes make the game ineligible for achievements if they care that much about it. Some combinations are certainly ridiculously overpowered at the moment but there are other ways they could have shackled it such as putting in massive penalties (or simply disallowing) removing states, not using available states if territories are available (excluding colonial/trade co areas) and so on. At the moment it is far too easy to culture shift into different nation formations for the claims simply by adding/removing states...

 

[shinyespeon]

Regarding the actual changes: that guy that one tag WC'd without coring was clearly ahead of his time!!

 

[Admiral Boysen]

Regarding the actual changes: that guy that one tag WC'd without coring was clearly ahead of his time!!

"that guy that one tag WC'd without coring" is the new game director.

 

[Shinkuro Yukinari]

when I was linked this post I immediately guessed its author

You and your community have acquired quite a reputation for your 'unique' game analysis!

Not as funny as the "we datamine the game and still don't know how discipline works" post though

Lemme guess, you play League too?

To be frank, he makes sense in this one. Tagswitching on this scale was not intended to be a thing, it was merely a loophole due to game mechanics being gamey and overly simplistic.
At least in CK2 you culture-switch due to education during upbringing, which somewhat makes sense for the time, albeit still gamey.

 

[TurtleShroom]

I have almost two thousand hours on the clock, I read the wiki and the forum regularly and I didn't even know you could do that. Is there really that much players doing it that you need to ban it? Won't you make your hardcore fan base who knows that kind of stuff angry for something not that important outside those circles? I'm not sure I understand what Paradox is going for here.

The goal is to punish people who play wide.

 

[bigaristotel]

Missionery change is just stupid

 

[Equester]

This went from a DLC and patch I was looking forward to, to something I wont be getting initially and staying on 1.25 unless their is a change/fix to missionaries not being able to convert territories. Tying corruption to number of territories and not total development in territories vs. in states is also really dumb. Exempting TC's, essentially buffing the already powerful TC's also seems like no thought was put into this change and I have no idea what they where thinking.

 

[bly08]

Primarily because it isn't JUST a single player sandbox game. That said, they really should put it in as an optional rule along with some other stuff (developing institutions immediately comes to mind as one). They can even set it so certain rule changes make the game ineligible for achievements if they care that much about it. Some combinations are certainly ridiculously overpowered at the moment but there are other ways they could have shackled it such as putting in massive penalties (or simply disallowing) removing states, not using available states if territories are available (excluding colonial/trade co areas) and so on. At the moment it is far too easy to culture shift into different nation formations for the claims simply by adding/removing states...

I've never heard of tag shift abuse in MPs except for the Ottoman -> Byzantium in dev clash where apparently unstating your best land and spending 400 dip to tag shift for perm claims to land you already own is too broken for the game.

I also don't see how it makes sense to restrict tag shifting if the reason is that it's too easy to get new mission claims when no one asked for those extra claims and plenty of tags gave perm claims in the old system as well. If it's to prevent exploiting achievements then why not just add a starting tag requirement rather than completely blocking tag shifts? For example, in addition to preventing Ottomans from forming Byzantium directly, add the "never have been" check so anyone who starts as the Ottomans can't form Byzantium.

Even if say, someone does a WC when they otherwise wouldn't have been able to with those claims, which is not very likely, why should that concern anyone? Are we supposed to be policing WC strategies? Balance the game around 1% of 1% of the player base when there's a backlog of 100 QoL bugs that keeps piling up patch after patch?

 

[Bayes]

They are just sending a clear message that it is bad to conquer provinces outside of colonial and trade company regions in a game where basically there isn´t anything else interesting to do (unless waiting for points to push a dev button qualifies as something interesting). It is not the 1st time they do this but IMO these are the worst changes in a very long time that do nothing but to reduce the game replay ability and test the player patience.

Don't think it will be hard to deal with, IF and only IF you expand towards TCs first. The extra state limit will be more than enough to keep things in check until you can properly conquer and set up trade companies. After that we're looking at 1.3 with 100 OE, if you only add the -2 from sunni every 5 years that's that. I do believe that between the missionaries nerf and the corruption Sunni is now meta, either that or stacking policies which would make espionage and defensive meta. But I think switching to sunni is just easier.

I agree that trade companies are way too strong atm. I hope they are recieving some changes in the upcoming patch notes. Im not saying it will now be hard, but that it def is a new factor that you need to consider and it will nerf your campaign if you choose to play wide, resulting in the game being hardER. I personally cannot handle the game past 1600 because of the lack of challenge, so if they are trying to make the game hardER Im cool with it. Corruption management will now be a big part of the game if you go wide, Im curious to see how it will play out.

The main uproar I've seen here is the total prohibition on Missionaries converting in non-state territories. I agree that corrutpion is already bad enough as it is and it shouldn't be made worse, but I've seen FAR worse "improvements", with the worst of all time being making Merchant Republics unplyable if you extend past a certain size.



The game won't be about trying to conquer a lot of land if Paradox is openly punishing people who do it. This is a direct ruination of a lot of people's fun, it destroys Religious Ideas, it shuts down more unusual play styles (I'm not a Turkey --> Georgia --> Byzantium guy either, but they have that right), and it tries to force people to play a certain way by making it far harder to do so. That is a direct counter to what makes Paradox games so great.

I want to wait and see how the missionary change plays out what makes me negative to the change rn is that its easy to have some temporary states for conversion at that point the change will be pretty pointless.

The "nerfs mean we dont want you to play that way" kind of thinking is impossible for me to wrap my head around. They are giving you more challenges to overcome when you are growing your big scary blob, something to make the game abit harder past critical mass is something that has been requested by alot of people for a long time. People like myself, who try to blob as much as possible because thats the most optimal way to play. After a certain point, all the challenge is gone, you have pretty much won already, noone can rival you, thats boring to me.

Speak for yourself, I play paradox games to be challenged through opposition, this gives me more opposition so, more of a reason to play.